Since June 11 (his average bottomed out on June 10 at .152), Anderson is 16 for 57 for a .281 AVG. He also has six doubles and five walks and a homer in that time. (Remember that he missed five games due to the suspension and Ozzie inexplicably chose not to give him any ABs in five other games - including three games in July.)

Isn't a .281 average just about everything that anyone could have expected Anderson to achieve (if not more)? Don't hold the first 10 weeks of the season against him, in which he had the difficult task of replacing a fan favorite (and apparently a good friend) on the defending World Champs, and still played (and continues to play) Gold Glove-caliber defense.

With the way Anderson has been producing of late, there's no reason to replace him and there's no reason whatsoever for Rob Mackowiak to start in center field.

markopat

07-11-2006, 12:41 PM

I'm sold...looks officially official to me!

BA for CF!! No platooning!

kwolf68

07-11-2006, 12:47 PM

Agree...I want BA out there with the exception of exceptionally tough righties. Although he did great against Schilling and then got taken out.

I think the Sox are doing now what they probably should have done earlier...bringing him along slowly. He's getting up to speed.

slobes

07-11-2006, 12:53 PM

I hope this will stop the switching between BA and Mack every couple of days. Stick with BA, unless, like it was said above, there's a tough righty on the mound.

Britt Burns

07-11-2006, 12:53 PM

If BA hits .264 the rest of the way I will be ecstatic. Hell, with the lineup we have and the way he plays D, he could hit .200 and I think you could make a solid case for starting him every day. BA is our centerfielder, and Mack goes back to what he is best at: a versatile utility player and a good lefty bat off the bench.

DickAllen72

07-11-2006, 12:58 PM

With the way Anderson has been producing of late, there's no reason to replace him and there's no reason whatsoever for Rob Mackowiak to start in center field.

Amen to that.

Fake Chet Lemon

07-11-2006, 12:58 PM

Our pitching needs BA's glove regardless of his bat. Keep him out there!

BTW, why doesn't Mack ever get to start in Left Field? Mack-BA-Dye would be a nice defensive outfield for a struggling starter.

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 12:59 PM

In his last six games, Anderson is 6 for 17 with two doubles and a steal for a .353 AVG, a .389 OBP and a .471 SLG.

Since June 11 (his average bottomed out on June 10 at .152), he's 14 for 53 for a .264 AVG. He also has six doubles and five walks and a homer in that time. (Remember that he missed five games due to the suspension and Ozzie inexplicably chose not to give him any ABs in five other games - including three games in July.)

Isn't a .264 average just about everything that anyone could have expected Anderson to achieve? Don't hold the first 10 weeks of the season against him, in which he had the difficult task of replacing a fan favorite (and apparently a good friend) on the defending World Champs, and still played (and continues to play) Gold Glove-caliber defense.

With the way Anderson has been producing of late, there's no reason to replace him and there's no reason whatsoever for Rob Mackowiak to start in center field.I'll be ecstatic if he continues to hit that well, but it is only six games. If that's all it took, Jamie Burke would be our starting catcher.

hawkjt

07-11-2006, 01:21 PM

Actually,Pre, I went over BA's game by game log yesterday and since june11 he is 16 of 57 which translates to .281

Maybe you did not include his last game in which he was 2-4 which would take 14-53 to 16-57 ?

Bottom line is that he is hitting just fine the last month so I have to laugh when i hear the sportstalk guys all talk about needing a centerfielder in a trade cuz the '' sox cannot live with a .180 hitter in center''

Clearly the trend is up and that is what is important- just like with Garlands ERA. Same comment on how the sox cannot live with a starter with an ERA like Garlands- the trend is good here also and these ''experts'' only focus on the totals.

Soxworldchamps

07-11-2006, 01:21 PM

Brian Anderson is an amazing, amazing center fielder. He also seems like lately he's been turning his hitting around. He really is a good player :D:

Baby Fisk

07-11-2006, 01:25 PM

Anderson = starting CF
Macko = once-a-week backup

oeo

07-11-2006, 01:25 PM

I'll be ecstatic if he continues to hit that well, but it is only six games. If that's all it took, Jamie Burke would be our starting catcher.

Well, he's definately not getting "lucky" like you claimed he was last week. He's hitting the ball hard, and if anything, he's been getting unlucky quite a few times. Sunday comes to mind when he nailed another Schilling pitch, but it was right to Loretta.

I don't understand why people want to believe that he wasn't slumping. He was killing the ball in Spring Training and it transferred into the season on opening day. Then it went downhill from there.

TornLabrum

07-11-2006, 01:30 PM

Well, he's definately not getting "lucky" like you claimed he was last week. He's hitting the ball hard, and if anything, he's been getting unlucky quite a few times. Sunday comes to mind when he nailed another Schilling pitch, but it was right to Loretta.

I don't understand why people want to believe that he wasn't slumping. He was killing the ball in Spring Training and it transferred into the season on opening day. Then it went downhill from there.

WCSF members who didn't attend last Friday's luncheon will read about what BA had to say about his slump in our next newsletter.

Chicken Dinner

07-11-2006, 01:33 PM

What's so official about this?? :kukoo:

Hitmen77

07-11-2006, 01:38 PM

I'll be ecstatic if he continues to hit that well, but it is only six games. If that's all it took, Jamie Burke would be our starting catcher.

It's not just six games. He's hitting .281 in his last 57 ABs.

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 01:40 PM

Well, he's definately not getting "lucky" like you claimed he was last week. He's hitting the ball hard, and if anything, he's been getting unlucky quite a few times. Sunday comes to mind when he nailed another Schilling pitch, but it was right to Loretta.

I don't understand why people want to believe that he wasn't slumping. He was killing the ball in Spring Training and it transferred into the season on opening day. Then it went downhill from there.Up until the last few games, most of his hits did look like luck, and I don't think you can necessarily say hitting well this week isn't luck, either. Even a lousy hitter will accidentally connect once in a while, and sometimes they'll come in bunches. That's why you can't extrapolate from a small sample size. Pablo Ozuna is hitting .413. Is he the best hitter since Ted Williams?

Slumps don't last 2 months. In fact, a slump is really nothing more than a statical anomaly. Over a week of AB all you need is a Texas leaguer that goes just far enough to get caught and a grounder that goes at a fielder instead of rolling through the box and poof! your average for the week just dropped 100 pts. Players get themselves all tied up in knots over it, but the reality is that it's not something they're doing different - it's just chance variation. But if it lasts two months, it's not a statistical anomaly.

hawkjt

07-11-2006, 01:48 PM

As we all know Paulie has had slumps that last two months but I would call them an anomaly cuz he has busted out of them to record solid numbers by year end.

When you have hit at every level then a two month dry stretch at the next level is not reason to conclude a guy in not capable of hitting at that level.

Crede just had the light go on and poof! now he is always dangerous.

I think BA is going to be a star.

Frater Perdurabo

07-11-2006, 01:56 PM

Slumps don't last 2 months. In fact, a slump is really nothing more than a statical anomaly. Over a week of AB all you need is a Texas leaguer that goes just far enough to get caught and a grounder that goes at a fielder instead of rolling through the box and poof! your average for the week just dropped 100 pts. Players get themselves all tied up in knots over it, but the reality is that it's not something they're doing different - it's just chance variation. But if it lasts two months, it's not a statistical anomaly.

Maybe it was not an anomaly, but if one looks beyond the numbers, it's certainly understandable why Anderson struggled in his first 10 weeks - there was tremendous pressure replacing a fan favorite (and good friend/dugout buddy) for the defending World Champions! Since then, he's done what been expected of him while still dealing with not facing real pitchers during a five-game suspension and then Ozzie inexplicably continuing to platoon him with Mackowiak. It's baseball, not a math formula, Pythagoras.
:rolleyes:
:tongue:

Batting .281 for the last month as hawkjt correctly points out merits full-time play, especially since he brings GOLD GLOVE-CALIBER DEFENSE to center field, an aspect of the game that it's foolish to overlook or downplay and in which Mackowiak just doesn't come close.

And Chicken Dinner, it's "official" only because I named it that, and it's meant to replace the other, older threads on Anderson to consolidate the debate here.
:tongue:

TornLabrum

07-11-2006, 01:59 PM

Slumps don't last 2 months.

Wrong! Mike Murphy has a tape of Jerome Walton saying something like, "Anybody can have a two-year slump."

Flight #24

07-11-2006, 02:01 PM

Up until the last few games, most of his hits did look like luck, and I don't think you can necessarily say hitting well this week isn't luck, either. Even a lousy hitter will accidentally connect once in a while, and sometimes they'll come in bunches. That's why you can't extrapolate from a small sample size. Pablo Ozuna is hitting .413. Is he the best hitter since Ted Williams?

Slumps don't last 2 months. In fact, a slump is really nothing more than a statical anomaly. Over a week of AB all you need is a Texas leaguer that goes just far enough to get caught and a grounder that goes at a fielder instead of rolling through the box and poof! your average for the week just dropped 100 pts. Players get themselves all tied up in knots over it, but the reality is that it's not something they're doing different - it's just chance variation. But if it lasts two months, it's not a statistical anomaly.

Just IMO, but I don't think 100-150ABs is necessarily indicative of a player's full year. Similarly, the last 50-odd ABs aren't either. So the jury's still out. There are some good signs, but it's still unclear if the "real" Brian is the .180 hitter of the first 2 months or the ~.280 hitter of the past month.

If he keeps it up the first few weeks out of the break, then it'll start to look like he's got it officially turned around. Regardless, as long as he's hitting, be it a lucky streak or true talent, his D basically requires him to be in there. If he's not hitting, then you have a debate.

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 02:09 PM

Maybe it was not an anomaly, but if one looks beyond the numbers, it's certainly understandable why Anderson struggled in his first 10 weeks - there was tremendous pressure replacing a fan favorite (and good friend/dugout buddy) for the defending World Champions! Since then, he's done what been expected of him while still dealing with not facing real pitchers during a five-game suspension and then Ozzie inexplicably continuing to platoon him with Mackowiak. It's baseball, not a math formula, Pythagoras.
:rolleyes:
:tongue:

Batting .281 for the last month as hawkjt correctly points out merits full-time play, especially since he brings GOLD GLOVE-CALIBER DEFENSE to center field, an aspect of the game that it's foolish to overlook or downplay and in which Mackowiak just doesn't come close.

And Chicken Dinner, it's "official" only because I named it that, and it's meant to replace the other, older threads on Anderson to consolidate the debate here.
:tongue:It's definately understandable why he'd struggle early in the season. That is precisely why I argued a month ago that he should be sent down to AAA during that period - so he could work on his hitting without having to deal with all the distractions and pressures. I also argued that it would be better to do it earlier in the season so he had time to straighten himself out and get back before the trading deadline. That way the team would at least know whether they needed to find another CF or not. At this point, that option is gone. They're going to have to play him for the next few weeks and see what happens.

And hitting .281 would be a lot more impressive if it were over any kind of decent sample size. Mackowiak is hitting .423 over his last 52 AB. Ozuna is hitting .413 over 92 AB. Move over Ted Williams.

Frater Perdurabo

07-11-2006, 02:10 PM

Regardless, as long as he's hitting, be it a lucky streak or true talent, his D basically requires him to be in there. If he's not hitting, then you have a debate.

That's fair enough. I don't care what he's done in the past, I only care what he's doing now. Throw out the stats from the first 10 weeks. Heck, throw out the stats from the first half.

If Anderson hits less than .200 going forward, he's still a better option in CF than Mackowiak, but a trade for a better hitting center fielder who fields the position at a high level is in order.

If he hits anywhere north of .200 going forward, Anderson has to be the full-time starting CF and #9 hitter.

The bottom line for me is that under no circumstances short of catastropic injuries to Anderson, Owens and Sweeney should Mackowiak play more than a handful of innings in center field. Heck, Dye and Pods would be better options in center field since they at least have played outfield regularly for years.

Minnie Me

07-11-2006, 02:15 PM

I hope this will stop the switching between BA and Mack every couple of days. Stick with BA, unless, like it was said above, there's a tough righty on the mound.

I would buy a tee shirt that say's

STICK WITH BA

Frater Perdurabo

07-11-2006, 02:17 PM

Mackowiak is hitting .423 over his last 52 AB. Move over Ted Williams.

The problem, again, is that even though he tries very hard, Mackowiak isn't much better at playing center field defensively than Ted Williams' headless corpse. If Anderson struggles after the break and a trade won't/can't happen, I'd rather give Owens, Sweeney, Pods or even Dye a shot at starting in CF over Mackowiak. My big problem with your idea from a month ago to demote Anderson to clear his head was that you were fine with Mackowiak as the starting center fielder for at least a month.

In the meantime, Anderson has improved his hitting at the major league level, when you thought a trip to the minors was necessary. I love it when players prove me (and legions of other people here) right.
:tongue:

Without question Anderson has earned the job of being the starting center fielder.

Hitmen77

07-11-2006, 02:22 PM

Slumps don't last 2 months. In fact, a slump is really nothing more than a statical anomaly. Over a week of AB all you need is a Texas leaguer that goes just far enough to get caught and a grounder that goes at a fielder instead of rolling through the box and poof! your average for the week just dropped 100 pts. Players get themselves all tied up in knots over it, but the reality is that it's not something they're doing different - it's just chance variation. But if it lasts two months, it's not a statistical anomaly.

.....except that we're talking about a rookie that has hit well at every other level and may just have needed time to adjust to life in the majors. In that respect, you are wrong about "slumps" not lasting two months.

You make it sound like BA's situation is the same thing as Royce Clayton hitting well for a 4 week period - where we would know it's just an anomoly. Is it guaranteed that BA will be successful in the 2nd half? No, it would be wrong to conclude that at this time. But you are just as wrong to say that his recent success is certainly a fluke.

So, what's up? Did BA accidentally run over your dog or something?

WS in 05

07-11-2006, 02:28 PM

still don't understand the 5 game suspesion timing....right when anderson started hitting his stride batting like .400 or so over his last couple of games they decided to sit him for 5 consecutive days with a suspension timing doesn't make sense to me..looks like his finally picking up where he left of before the suspension

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 02:28 PM

The problem, again, is that even though he tries very hard, Mackowiak isn't much better at playing center field defensively than Ted Williams' headless corpse. If Anderson struggles after the break and a trade won't/can't happen, I'd rather give Owens, Sweeney, Pods or even Dye a shot at starting in CF over Mackowiak. My big problem with your idea from a month ago to demote Anderson to clear his head was that you were fine with Mackowiak as the starting center fielder for at least a month.

In the meantime, Anderson has improved his hitting at the major league level, when you thought a trip to the minors was necessary. I love it when players prove me (and legions of other people here) right.
:tongue:

Without question Anderson has earned the job of being the starting center fielder.Whether he's actually improved his hitting or it's just a lucky streak remains to be seen. You also can't tell what might have happened if he had been sent down. He could very well be back again and hitting .300.

Minnie Me

07-11-2006, 02:34 PM

Whether he's actually improved his hitting or it's just a lucky streak remains to be seen. You also can't tell what might have happened if he had been sent down. He could very well be back again and hitting .300.

It is what it is. BA did NOT get sent down. BA is here. BA will play the majority of CF for the Sox after the break barring a blockbuster trade or injury. Prepare yourself for the BA Era because it is here and you must accept it. Resistance is futile.

It's definately understandable why he'd struggle early in the season. That is precisely why I argued a month ago that he should be sent down to AAA during that period - so he could work on his hitting without having to deal with all the distractions and pressures. I also argued that it would be better to do it earlier in the season so he had time to straighten himself out and get back before the trading deadline. That way the team would at least know whether they needed to find another CF or not. At this point, that option is gone. They're going to have to play him for the next few weeks and see what happens.

And hitting .281 would be a lot more impressive if it were over any kind of decent sample size. Mackowiak is hitting .423 over his last 52 AB. Ozuna is hitting .413 over 92 AB. Move over Ted Williams.

So, let me get this straight.

You argue that BA's success at the big league level over the last month is practically meaningless and doesn't prove anything to us. Yet, you feel that if we had sent BA down to Charlotte for all this time and had him hit well at AAA, then we would have known if he was ready to be our CF for the rest of the season? :?:

Frater Perdurabo

07-11-2006, 02:52 PM

So, let me get this straight.

You argue that BA's success at the big league level over the last month is practically meaningless and doesn't prove anything to us. Yet, you feel that if we had sent BA down to Charlotte for all this time and had him hit well at AAA, then we would have known if he was ready to be our CF for the rest of the season? :?:

Since it was put this way (thanks, Hitmen77), my reaction to Ol' No. 2's idea is: :?: :?:

oeo

07-11-2006, 03:10 PM

Whether he's actually improved his hitting or it's just a lucky streak remains to be seen. You also can't tell what might have happened if he had been sent down. He could very well be back again and hitting .300.
Or he could be doing worse. You don't know how being sent down would have affected him. Say he did get sent down, and was tearing up AAA. They bring him back up, and there's even more pressure on him.

"If I don't straighten it up here in the big leagues, I'm going to AAA for the rest of the season, or out of here forever."

I like the route that they took. They told him they had confidence in him and to just relax...you have the talent to go far in this league.

Confidence from your manager, general manager, and the front office can be a lot more helpful than a stint in the minors.

34 Inch Stick

07-11-2006, 03:11 PM

.....except that we're talking about a rookie that has hit well at every other level and may just have needed time to adjust to life in the majors. In that respect, you are wrong about "slumps" not lasting two months.

?

This is the definitive statement of this thread. Sample size? IIRC scouts do not like to judge a player before he has 400 at bats. Anderson is just about half way there. Right now we are in the stage of development where you accept the pain with a hope for a brighter future. It is really a pointless debate as KW seems to have come to this realization in spring training.

There is a position for Mackowiak in the every day lineup. He should come up in any important at bat for Anderson after the 6th inning or as a defensive replacement for Pods in the 9th every night.

voodoochile

07-11-2006, 03:16 PM

This is the definitive statement of this thread. Sample size? IIRC scouts do not like to judge a player before he has 400 at bats. Anderson is just about half way there. Right now we are in the stage of development where you accept the pain with a hope for a brighter future. It is really a pointless debate as KW seems to have come to this realization in spring training.

There is a position for Mackowiak in the every day lineup. He should come up in any important at bat for Anderson after the 6th inning or as a defensive replacement for Pods in the 9th every night.

AND...

In the last 57 AB he has started to get some hits and look semi-competent at the plate. Now would be the exact wrong time to give up on him. This kid is going to be a solid player in the majors for a long time, IMO. Give him a chance. The Sox have a while yet before they have to make a trade. If BA regresses in the next two weeks, KW can make the move he needs to.

This mixing of Doctor Who imagery with Star Trek catchphrases is incompatible. I have to blow the whistle on this one, little dude. Daleks want to exterminate humans, not assimilate them. The Borg is all about assimilation.

As a matter of fact I DO happen to be single and live alone; why do you ask?

BA for CF in '06.

QCIASOXFAN

07-11-2006, 03:37 PM

I agree that he needs more starts in CF, it pisses me off when Ozzie starts Mack in CF all the time. I understand the guy needs a day off every once in a while, but its not like hes Thome or one of our older players who's bodys aren't in that kind of shape anymore. To me the whole thing shows that Ozzie doesn't have to much faith in him anymore.

Chicken Dinner

07-11-2006, 03:39 PM

I think we've beat this horse to death. BA has his fate in his own hands. He'll get a little more rope.....but how much is up to him.

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 03:40 PM

So, let me get this straight.

You argue that BA's success at the big league level over the last month is practically meaningless and doesn't prove anything to us. Yet, you feel that if we had sent BA down to Charlotte for all this time and had him hit well at AAA, then we would have known if he was ready to be our CF for the rest of the season? :?:
What's so hard to understand? Say they sent him down on June 1. Either:

A) he started hitting again in AAA and they bring him up the beginning of July, giving them a full month before the trade deadline to evaluate, or

B) he didn't start hitting in AAA over that month, in which case you have to make a move.

Randar68

07-11-2006, 03:46 PM

Up until the last few games, most of his hits did look like luck, and I don't think you can necessarily say hitting well this week isn't luck, either. Even a lousy hitter will accidentally connect once in a while, and sometimes they'll come in bunches. That's why you can't extrapolate from a small sample size. Pablo Ozuna is hitting .413. Is he the best hitter since Ted Williams?

Slumps don't last 2 months. In fact, a slump is really nothing more than a statical anomaly. Over a week of AB all you need is a Texas leaguer that goes just far enough to get caught and a grounder that goes at a fielder instead of rolling through the box and poof! your average for the week just dropped 100 pts. Players get themselves all tied up in knots over it, but the reality is that it's not something they're doing different - it's just chance variation. But if it lasts two months, it's not a statistical anomaly.

So Konerko's half-season suck-fests from 2000-2004 weren't slumps? :rolleyes:No. If you recall, after his horrific start in 2003 he worked with Greg Walker on his mechanics to refine his swing. It's no accident that he hasn't had another since.

The distinction I'm making is between short-term slumps, lasting up to a few weeks, which are just statistical anomalies, and longer-term issues, which are indicative of actual problems. Anderson's case clearly falls into the latter category, as does Konerko's pre-2004 inconsistencies. The difference is, slumps cure themselves because there's not really a problem. You just play through it and pretty soon you're hitting again. But if you're not hitting for a couple of months, it's not going to go away on its own. Something has to be altered.

WS in 05

07-11-2006, 03:57 PM

I think we've beat this horse to death. BA has his fate in his own hands. He'll get a little more rope.....but how much is up to him.

winner winner chicken dinner

hawkjt

07-11-2006, 04:30 PM

Of course this is where Buster Olney suggests the sox should trade BA and Javy Vasquez for Aaron Rowand.

Aaron has hit .197 since june 11.
BA has hit.281 since june 11.

Now Carmen and Silvy have picked this up for discussion on AM1000.

Buster is supposed to be a knowledgable baseball man?

Ridiculous.

Randar68

07-11-2006, 04:34 PM

No. If you recall, after his horrific start in 2003 he worked with Greg Walker on his mechanics to refine his swing. It's no accident that he hasn't had another since.

The distinction I'm making is between short-term slumps, lasting up to a few weeks, which are just statistical anomalies, and longer-term issues, which are indicative of actual problems. Anderson's case clearly falls into the latter category, as does Konerko's pre-2004 inconsistencies. The difference is, slumps cure themselves because there's not really a problem. You just play through it and pretty soon you're hitting again. But if you're not hitting for a couple of months, it's not going to go away on its own. Something has to be altered.

How can you claim Anderson's falls into the latter and simply not a "lack of experience?" That's total bunk. Anderson has looked overwhelmed at times not because of his swing length, mechanics, etc... it's been due to pitch recognition and confidence as much as anything... he goes the other way, tries to use the whole field, etc...

Crede went through a couple years worth of multiple-month slumps like this...

IT TAKES TIME to adjust. Again, Anderson's issues haven't been mechanical...

Why don't you go take a look at his monthy BB:K rate... steadily improving... right along with his average and his pitch recognition...

fquaye149

07-11-2006, 04:54 PM

How can you claim Anderson's falls into the latter and simply not a "lack of experience?" That's total bunk. Anderson has looked overwhelmed at times not because of his swing length, mechanics, etc... it's been due to pitch recognition and confidence as much as anything... he goes the other way, tries to use the whole field, etc...

Crede went through a couple years worth of multiple-month slumps like this...

IT TAKES TIME to adjust. Again, Anderson's issues haven't been mechanical...

Why don't you go take a look at his monthy BB:K rate... steadily improving... right along with his average and his pitch recognition...

ON2 has Shoota disease with BA. To be fair though, during the Crede times when Crede was hitting like BA this May/June, there were a lot of people with Shoota disease with Crede. But the point is, until BA's batting avg is above .250, I doubt you're going to be able to convince ON2 that BA is a .250 hitter. And even then, it might be a tough sell.

LOOK--he's advocated sending him down to the AAA level for evaluation, despite the fact that BA has always been able to hit AAA pitching so any success down there would be almost meaningless for anything besides confidence (which doesn't seem to be an issue with BA)

He's tried to claim that the first two months of everyday MLB play in BA's career is somehow definitive of his ability to hit MLB pitching (despite the constant reminder of Ventura's early career) and dismisses the most recent month of play as "too small a sample size".

ON2 is not Shoota, and he knows a lot about the game of baseball...but he seems to have made up his mind about BA and will find a straw man for any argument FOR BA (i.e. the "Ozuna is not Ted Williams" argument, although it's so very obviously a different situation)

Mr. White Sox

07-11-2006, 05:01 PM

I said in the original (lame) "Brian Anderson Needs to Go" thread that he would finish around .240 or .250 for the year with 15 HR and 10-15 SB. That is more than acceptable for a 9th place hitter especially considering his defense, not to mention his ability to get on base via the walk as well. Keep him around.

Next year I'd expect a line around .265/20/70/15 SB

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 05:13 PM

How can you claim Anderson's falls into the latter and simply not a "lack of experience?" That's total bunk. Anderson has looked overwhelmed at times not because of his swing length, mechanics, etc... it's been due to pitch recognition and confidence as much as anything... he goes the other way, tries to use the whole field, etc...

Crede went through a couple years worth of multiple-month slumps like this...

IT TAKES TIME to adjust. Again, Anderson's issues haven't been mechanical...

Why don't you go take a look at his monthy BB:K rate... steadily improving... right along with his average and his pitch recognition..."Problems" don't necessarily have to be mechanical. The main point was to distinguish between longer-term poor hitting that are a result of something that needs to be addressed and slumps that are not "fixable" because they're due to statistical anomalies, not something that's wrong.

Up until the last week or so, Anderson has looked completely befuddled at the plate. He finally stopped chasing pitches a few weeks ago and that's been a marked improvement, but his swing was still all over the place, with the result that solid contact was more of an accident than anything else. He hit mostly popups and grounders, some of which inevitably go through, with a well-hit ball once every 2-3 games. What I've seen from him in the last week is a more consistent swing plane, which has resulted in solid, but more importantly, consistent contact. He's started hitting line drives instead of grounders and popups. Hopefully he can keep this up.

Certainly experience played a role, but only a minor one IMO. I believe you were the one who said last year he'd hit .280 right away and better than that once he got some experience. From what I've seen, I'd say you were right then, and the difference between that .280 and what he's been doing up until recently is a result of a flawed approach at the plate. He needed to find his groove again, and IMO, he'd have been better served doing it in AAA where there's less pressure. But that didn't happen and here we are. All we can do now is hope he keeps improving.

And since you brought up Crede, he's a case in point. His problem wasn't slumps. He had a long, loopy swing that made it all but impossible to make consistent contact. I don't buy the confidence argument. His swing, while still a bit long, is level and much quicker than before. That, IMO, is the reason for his success.

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 05:15 PM

ON2 has Shoota disease with BA. To be fair though, during the Crede times when Crede was hitting like BA this May/June, there were a lot of people with Shoota disease with Crede. But the point is, until BA's batting avg is above .250, I doubt you're going to be able to convince ON2 that BA is a .250 hitter. And even then, it might be a tough sell.

LOOK--he's advocated sending him down to the AAA level for evaluation, despite the fact that BA has always been able to hit AAA pitching so any success down there would be almost meaningless for anything besides confidence (which doesn't seem to be an issue with BA)

He's tried to claim that the first two months of everyday MLB play in BA's career is somehow definitive of his ability to hit MLB pitching (despite the constant reminder of Ventura's early career) and dismisses the most recent month of play as "too small a sample size".

ON2 is not Shoota, and he knows a lot about the game of baseball...but he seems to have made up his mind about BA and will find a straw man for any argument FOR BA (i.e. the "Ozuna is not Ted Williams" argument, although it's so very obviously a different situation)What makes you think you can put words in my mouth?

nug0hs

07-11-2006, 05:25 PM

Our pitching needs BA's glove regardless of his bat. Keep him out there!

BTW, why doesn't Mack ever get to start in Left Field? Mack-BA-Dye would be a nice defensive outfield for a struggling starter.

I definitely agree with your comment. First of all, I think Pods' defensive abilities in left have severely been downgraded as of late. It seems like once a week he dives for a shallow hit ball that he misread (its not like he doesnt have enough speed to get there in time!!) and I am yet to see him actually make the grab...Anderson then swoops in and snags the ball to hold to a double. I would definitely be down to see Mack start a few in left...maybe try easing him in w/a few late innings in games we know we have in the bag.

fquaye149

07-11-2006, 05:28 PM

What makes you think you can put words in my mouth?

The sample size of two months of posting about Brian Anderson allows me to predict what's likely to be posted by you in the near future.

Of course, it's not a certainty--but two months is too long to discard your posts as just a slump...

Randar68

07-11-2006, 05:38 PM

The sample size of two months of posting about Brian Anderson allows me to predict what's likely to be posted by you in the near future.

Of course, it's not a certainty--but two months is too long to discard your posts as just a slump...

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA! :gulp:

Randar68

07-11-2006, 05:42 PM

"Problems" don't necessarily have to be mechanical. The main point was to distinguish between longer-term poor hitting that are a result of something that needs to be addressed and slumps that are not "fixable" because they're due to statistical anomalies, not something that's wrong.

So Anderson's problems weren't "fixable" because he struggled for 2 months... then what about the past 20 games or so constituting the last month??? He hasn't fixed it despite his dramatically improved K:BB numbers, or the fact that he's been hitting the ball hard of late?

And all this talk of luck you spew is such trash it's not even defensible from any standpoint aside from your lunatic hard-on to send BA down or replace him now that he has finally figured things out... :rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2

07-11-2006, 05:44 PM

So Anderson's problems weren't "fixable" because he struggled for 2 months... then what about the past 20 games or so constituting the last month??? He hasn't fixed it despite his dramatically improved K:BB numbers, or the fact that he's been hitting the ball hard of late?

And all this talk of luck you spew is such trash it's not even defensible from any standpoint aside from your lunatic hard-on to send BA down or replace him now that he has finally figured things out... :rolleyes:Did you even read what I wrote? It doesn't appear that way.

GoSox2K3

07-11-2006, 07:03 PM

The key to the Sox this year is PITCHING. Our pitching will determine whether or not we return to the World Series. The Sox need to do everything they can to bolster their pitching.

...And the key to good pitching is good defense. One way we can improve our pitching is to PLAY BRIAN ANDERSON EVERY DAY! His defense in center can help cut innings short, reduce pitch counts, and hopefully cutdown on "meltdowns" by our starting pitching. We need BA in center!!!!

I am not worried about this team's offense one bit. Especially with Anderson coming around, our offense 1 thru 9 will give us plenty of runs. The Sox fate ultimately will be determined by pitching and defense.

doctorlecter

07-11-2006, 07:36 PM

Honestly, the "we cant have an everyday player hitting .180" argument has to go. Throw out the "since June 11, he's hitting .281" argument. I KNOW that KW, GW, and Ozzie are NOT looking at it that way. They are looking for the kid to put together good at bats. They are not going to look at a stat sheet and give equal credit to a check swing dribbler that falls in and a hard liner that a third baseman steals. Billy Beane does things that way, NOT KW.

That being said, for the first 10 weeks, BA was giving away a TON of at bats. The count seemed to be 0-2 before he had his feet set. When he was behind in the count, he didn't seem to adept at protecting the corners.

For the last month, I've noticed a major improvement in the quality of his at bats. Coincidentally or not, that is when his stats have started to improve. He is working himself into more hitter's counts, and taking good swings when he gets there. I think that the fact that he's putting together two or three good at bats per start prove that he's not overmatched on the major league level. He still needs to improve on protecting the plate with two strikes, but that is what rookies do, IMPROVE. I can live with a youngster that is showing some improvement at the plate with a long way to go, considering that he's lights-out in center field. Good teams are strong up the middle, and we cant afford to overlook this talented young man

GoSox2K3

07-11-2006, 07:55 PM

Slumps don't last 2 months. In fact, a slump is really nothing more than a statical anomaly. Over a week of AB all you need is a Texas leaguer that goes just far enough to get caught and a grounder that goes at a fielder instead of rolling through the box and poof! your average for the week just dropped 100 pts. Players get themselves all tied up in knots over it, but the reality is that it's not something they're doing different - it's just chance variation. But if it lasts two months, it's not a statistical anomaly.
So, what's up? Did BA accidentally run over your dog or something?

http://www.rob-clarkson.com/duff-brewery/lionelhutz/02.jpgHutz: Well, he's kind of had it in for me, since I accidently ran over his dog. Actually, replace `accidently' with `repeatedly', and replace `dog' with `son'.

FarWestChicago

07-11-2006, 10:00 PM

What makes you think you can put words in my mouth?Well you have gone completely "shoota" about BA. It's really quite odd. :?:

Minnie Me

07-12-2006, 08:52 AM

This mixing of Doctor Who imagery with Star Trek catchphrases is incompatible. I have to blow the whistle on this one, little dude. Daleks want to exterminate humans, not assimilate them. The Borg is all about assimilation.

As a matter of fact I DO happen to be single and live alone; why do you ask?

What's so hard to understand? Say they sent him down on June 1. Either:

A) he started hitting again in AAA and they bring him up the beginning of July, giving them a full month before the trade deadline to evaluate, or

B) he didn't start hitting in AAA over that month, in which case you have to make a move.This hypothetical is unimaginable to me, since my heart could not take a full month of Rob Mack in centerfield. Anyone who has seen him out there (with last Saturday serving as a perfect example) knows he is trying his hardest, but he just doesn't have it. The best thing for Brian could arguably have been to get some extra at-bats in AAA, but it wouldn't have been the best thing for the team. Brian isn't there to be a big time hitter. He is there to make awesome plays look easy in centerfield. All the analyst have said that his average would improve in time, and it has. Its about time we let the kid show us what he can do full time.

ondafarm

07-12-2006, 10:19 AM

This hypothetical is unimaginable to me, since my heart could not take a full month of Rob Mack in centerfield. Anyone who has seen him out there (with last Saturday serving as a perfect example) knows he is trying his hardest, but he just doesn't have it. The best thing for Brian could arguably have been to get some extra at-bats in AAA, but it wouldn't have been the best thing for the team. Brian isn't there to be a big time hitter. He is there to make awesome plays look easy in centerfield. All the analyst have said that his average would improve in time, and it has. Its about time we let the kid show us what he can do full time.

Just a word of advice here: the mods know nothing of the subjunctive. You'll have to trust me on that, but I lost last year's pick-to-click contest because of it.

Ol' No. 2

07-12-2006, 10:19 AM

This hypothetical is unimaginable to me, since my heart could not take a full month of Rob Mack in centerfield. Anyone who has seen him out there (with last Saturday serving as a perfect example) knows he is trying his hardest, but he just doesn't have it. The best thing for Brian could arguably have been to get some extra at-bats in AAA, but it wouldn't have been the best thing for the team. Brian isn't there to be a big time hitter. He is there to make awesome plays look easy in centerfield. All the analyst have said that his average would improve in time, and it has. Its about time we let the kid show us what he can do full time.I hate seeing Mackowiak in CF as much as the next guy, but what it boils down to is, it's a tradeoff. How much offense are you willing to trade for how much defense? That's an age-old question and different people are going to come up with different answers. I've been counting, and as best I can determine, it comes to between one and two extra plays made per week. If anyone else has been counting and has come up with a different number, I haven't heard it. All I've ever heard is vague pronouncements that "defense is important". Duh.

100 pts in batting average comes to 2 hits per week. So by a simple comparison (not mine, this is the Frater method), it's a net loss. If someone can show me the flaw in that argument, please do. But stick to facts and not platitudes.

ondafarm

07-12-2006, 10:22 AM

I hate seeing Mackowiak in CF as much as the next guy, but what it boils down to is, it's a tradeoff. How much offense are you willing to trade for how much defense? That's an age-old question and different people are going to come up with different answers. I've been counting, and as best I can determine, it comes to between one and two extra plays made per week. If anyone else has been counting and has come up with a different number, I haven't heard it. All I've ever heard is vague pronouncements that "defense is important". Duh.

100 pts in batting average comes to 2 hits per week. So by a simple comparison (not mine, this is the Frater method), it's a net loss. If someone can show me the flaw in that argument, please do. But stick to facts and not platitudes.

You've heard a different number from me and the stats are quite clear: BA makes roughly one extra put out per game than Mack in CF.

Ol' No. 2

07-12-2006, 10:26 AM

You've heard a different number from me and the stats are quite clear: BA makes roughly one extra put out per game than Mack in CF.Horsefeathers. That's absurd.

ondafarm

07-12-2006, 10:33 AM

Horsefeathers. That's absurd.

Brian Anderson has a range factor of 3.29 this year.

Rob Mackowiak has a range factor of 2.29 this year in his OF play.

That is one extra put out per 9 innings.

If you look at the play of the two, this makes perfect sense. Mack is not an inuitive outfielder, his jumps are tenative at best. BA is playing ungodly defense in CF.

Ol' No. 2

07-12-2006, 10:36 AM

Brian Anderson has a range factor of 3.29 this year.

Rob Mackowiak has a range factor of 2.29 this year in his OF play.

That is one extra put out per 9 innings.

If you look at the play of the two, this makes perfect sense. Mack is not an inuitive outfielder, his jumps are tenative at best. BA is playing ungodly defense in CF.Use your eyes, man. Do you see one play every game? Defensive statistics are notoriously unreliable. You know that as well as I do.

Flight #24

07-12-2006, 10:39 AM

I hate seeing Mackowiak in CF as much as the next guy, but what it boils down to is, it's a tradeoff. How much offense are you willing to trade for how much defense? That's an age-old question and different people are going to come up with different answers. I've been counting, and as best I can determine, it comes to between one and two extra plays made per week. If anyone else has been counting and has come up with a different number, I haven't heard it. All I've ever heard is vague pronouncements that "defense is important". Duh.

100 pts in batting average comes to 2 hits per week. So by a simple comparison (not mine, this is the Frater method), it's a net loss. If someone can show me the flaw in that argument, please do. But stick to facts and not platitudes.

That assumes you weight the 2 equally, which I think is incorrect. First off, there's a much higher likelihood that a missed play in CF is going to result in extra bases. There's also the impact that that type of D has on the pitcher/team. In general, if Mack's O = BA's D & BA's O = Mack's D, the 2 aren't equal players because D is more important.

That's the real issue, how much O you gain relative to how much D you lose. The greater importance of D basically means that unless BA is continuing to hit <.180 and Mack >.280 there really is no debate.

Deuce

07-12-2006, 10:54 AM

Use your eyes, man. Do you see one play every game? Defensive statistics are notoriously unreliable. You know that as well as I do.After seeing Rob Mack play live on several occasions, as well as Anderson, I would say that Ondafarm is either on the money or a bit low. Anderson is not your average centerfielder. Rob can make the easy plays, but he sometimes struggles with the not-so-easy-but-catchable plays. Anderson makes tough plays look easy and impossible catchs possible. He is making the plays he needs to make and some no one expects him to. And given that our pitching staff is giving up more hits this year than last, defense has become a necessity and not simply insurance.

The Sox are giving up more hits and opposing runners are stealing more bases. As such, singles (much less doubles or triples) tranlate much more often into runs this year than last. The numbers don't lie: the offense is better this year, but the defense is worse. Therefore, departing from Anderson because of his offensive numbers seems like the worst approach to take on a team that is struggling defensively.

Deuce

ondafarm

07-12-2006, 10:55 AM

Use your eyes, man. Do you see one play every game? Defensive statistics are notoriously unreliable. You know that as well as I do.

Use yours. I was surprised that that was all the difference was. Brian has significant speed on Mack and with the much better instincts makes so many plays look much easier.

Defensive stats tend to be unreliable over the short term because even poor defensive players seldom make errors, most plays are routine. Also, there is a hog cycle in certain aspects of defense: players with good defensive reputations have fewer chances to make assists because nobody runs on them.

havelj

07-12-2006, 11:01 AM

Even a lousy hitter will accidentally connect once in a while, and sometimes they'll come in bunches. Slumps don't last 2 months. In fact, a slump is really nothing more than a statical anomaly. Over a week of AB all you need is a Texas leaguer that goes just far enough to get caught and a grounder that goes at a fielder instead of rolling through the box and poof! your average for the week just dropped 100 pts.
"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25
weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one
more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."
-Crash Davis

That assumes you weight the 2 equally, which I think is incorrect. First off, there's a much higher likelihood that a missed play in CF is going to result in extra bases. There's also the impact that that type of D has on the pitcher/team. In general, if Mack's O = BA's D & BA's O = Mack's D, the 2 aren't equal players because D is more important.

That's the real issue, how much O you gain relative to how much D you lose. The greater importance of D basically means that unless BA is continuing to hit <.180 and Mack >.280 there really is no debate.I'm not sure I accept the premise that a missed defensive play has a much higher likelihood of resulting in extra bases. A ball that dropped in front of him because he's playing deep should go for no more than a single. Ditto for a ball in the gap that isn't hit hard enough to go to the wall and is played on one bounce. Only a fraction of missed plays go past him to the wall. But not every hit is a single, either. Typically about 1/4 to 1/3 will be XBH. So maybe there's some difference, but it would have to be very large to offset an almost 2:1 ratio of hits lost per defensive play made. It would be very difficult to quantify this.

I really think a big part of this is perception. It's easy to point to a defensive play not made and assess what it cost you. It's a discrete event that's easy to identify and everyone talks about it the next day. But how do you assess the loss from a hit not made, when you can't say for sure if the other guy would have made a hit in that situation? Even the best hitters make outs 70% of the time. Which of those extra outs are the ones that cost you? It's not so easy because there's nothing discrete to point to, but over time those extra hits make a difference - they're just harder to see. It's easy to be swayed into giving a lot higher weight to the defensive plays because they're more noticable, but I think when you consider it dispassionately, the tradeoff is different than it initially appears.

voodoochile

07-12-2006, 11:16 AM

I hate seeing Mackowiak in CF as much as the next guy, but what it boils down to is, it's a tradeoff. How much offense are you willing to trade for how much defense? That's an age-old question and different people are going to come up with different answers. I've been counting, and as best I can determine, it comes to between one and two extra plays made per week. If anyone else has been counting and has come up with a different number, I haven't heard it. All I've ever heard is vague pronouncements that "defense is important". Duh.

100 pts in batting average comes to 2 hits per week. So by a simple comparison (not mine, this is the Frater method), it's a net loss. If someone can show me the flaw in that argument, please do. But stick to facts and not platitudes.
Your numbers are almost identical (if we say a hit prevented is the same as one generated).

If you take that one step further and assume (seems logical) that the hits prevented normally are for extra bases, then the trade off isn't nearly as bad as you are trying to make it to be, in fact if you agree with my assumption it probably is better to have BA in CF because most hits are not for extra bases, while the ones prevented normally are.

Again, if BA continues to improve at the plate, and the recent trend suggests he definitely is, then the choice seems obvious - again, using your numbers for the analysis.

Factor in the BA is a rookie still finding his way and the argument is bordering on silly, IMO.

Frater Perdurabo

07-12-2006, 11:17 AM

the Frater method

The so-called "Frater method" to which Ol' No. 2 refers was a satire on the shoota method of calculating statistics that degraded Joe Crede. This tongue-in-cheek proposed "Frater method" would credit Anderson with "hits" when Mackowiak failed to catch a ball that Anderson would have caught. My point was that the Sox ultimately reaped rewards for sticking with Joe Crede because of his superior, Gold Glove-caliber defense, despite his hitting woes (and the weeping and gnashing of teeth by since-banned posters like shoota and WhiteSoxJosh), and that the Sox should be similarly patient with Anderson. This joke (with a point, though) has been retired in favor of the superior stats that Onda has provided. By quantitative analysis, Anderson makes one extra putout per game.

I love debating with you, Ol' No. 2, but face it, you are grasping at straws. When West calls you out on your shoota-esque obsessions, you're liable to earn a new nickname; remember that shoota came to be known as "Glenn Close."
:tongue:

Flight #24

07-12-2006, 11:23 AM

Use yours. I was surprised that that was all the difference was. Brian has significant speed on Mack and with the much better instincts makes so many plays look much easier.

Defensive stats tend to be unreliable over the short term because even poor defensive players seldom make errors, most plays are routine. Also, there is a hog cycle in certain aspects of defense: players with good defensive reputations have fewer chances to make assists because nobody runs on them.

Another issue is that IMO Mack's getting a bit nervous out there. During Sunday's marathon, there were a number of lazy fly balls to CF on which while he was in position, he was obviously uncomfortable & unsure, shuffling his feet, moving into position in stops & starts, etc. You could tell he was doubting whether or not he was judging the ball correctly. Once you start to think out there, it just gets worse. Much like BA's offensive troubles could have continued to snowball.

At this point, it's all academic. BA's hitting, and as long as he does that at a .220-esque or higher average, he's GOT to be out there.

Frater Perdurabo

07-12-2006, 11:26 AM

I'm not sure I accept the premise that a missed defensive play has a much higher likelihood of resulting in extra bases. A ball that dropped in front of him because he's playing deep should go for no more than a single. Ditto for a ball in the gap that isn't hit hard enough to go to the wall and is played on one bounce. Only a fraction of missed plays go past him to the wall. But not every hit is a single, either. Typically about 1/4 to 1/3 will be XBH. So maybe there's some difference, but it would have to be very large to offset an almost 2:1 ratio of hits lost per defensive play made. It would be very difficult to quantify this.

I really think a big part of this is perception. It's easy to point to a defensive play not made and assess what it cost you. It's a discrete event that's easy to identify and everyone talks about it the next day. But how do you assess the loss from a hit not made, when you can't say for sure if the other guy would have made a hit in that situation? Even the best hitters make outs 70% of the time. Which of those extra outs are the ones that cost you? It's not so easy because there's nothing discrete to point to, but over time those extra hits make a difference - they're just harder to see. It's easy to be swayed into giving a lot higher weight to the defensive plays because they're more noticable, but I think when you consider it dispassionately, the tradeoff is different than it initially appears.

If defense is so overrated because it is so noticable, why not trade for Carlos Lee and put him in center? Why not put Thome in center (they could have kept Thomas as the primary DH!)?

Randar68

07-12-2006, 11:40 AM

Use your eyes, man. Do you see one play every game? Defensive statistics are notoriously unreliable. You know that as well as I do.

Yes, I do. They also play CF behind the exact same pitching staff in the same parks... Range Factor is more applicable here than in any other context imaginable...

"My God man, USE YOUR BRAIN!"

Randar68

07-12-2006, 11:43 AM

Brian Anderson has a range factor of 3.29 this year.

Rob Mackowiak has a range factor of 2.29 this year in his OF play.

That is one extra put out per 9 innings.

If you look at the play of the two, this makes perfect sense. Mack is not an inuitive outfielder, his jumps are tenative at best. BA is playing ungodly defense in CF.

And by making one more PO per game, Mack would have to hit around .250 points higher (assuming an average of 4 AB's per game for a hitter at the bottom of the order) to make it worth his trade-off.

That's totally ****ing absurd!!!!!!

Randar68

07-12-2006, 11:48 AM

Factor in the BA is a rookie still finding his way and the argument is bordering on silly, IMO.

And factor in that Ol No 2's 1-2 plays per week is less than half of what it ACTUALLY is, and this whole stupid argument he has tried to perpetuate with utter trash and lack of reason and this thread only longer exists to allow him to make further fool of himself...

In the last 57 AB he has started to get some hits and look semi-competent at the plate. Now would be the exact wrong time to give up on him. This kid is going to be a solid player in the majors for a long time, IMO. Give him a chance. The Sox have a while yet before they have to make a trade. If BA regresses in the next two weeks, KW can make the move he needs to.

That's what I was saying.

voodoochile

07-12-2006, 12:07 PM

And factor in that Ol No 2's 1-2 plays per week is less than half of what it ACTUALLY is, and this whole stupid argument he has tried to perpetuate with utter trash and lack of reason and this thread only longer exists to allow him to make further fool of himself...

Okay, you made your point, no need to continue the name calling.:rolleyes:

ondafarm

07-12-2006, 12:30 PM

I believe there is only one vote that counts here and I don't think Ozzie has been shy about his opinion. BA is the CF for right now and Mack will get some spot duty there. Everybody gets days off in Ozzie scheme and having a lefty with some power is not a bad sub to have. I think Mack will start to get a few more at-bats subbing in other positions.

SoxFan64

07-12-2006, 12:56 PM

All I've ever heard is vague pronouncements that "defense is important". Duh...100 pts in batting average comes to 2 hits per week. So by a simple comparison (not mine, this is the Frater method), it's a net loss. If someone can show me the flaw in that argument, please do. But stick to facts and not platitudes.
Brian Anderson has a range factor of 3.29 this year. Rob Mackowiak has a range factor of 2.29 this year in his OF play. That is one extra put out per 9 innings.
Use your eyes, man. Do you see one play every game? Defensive statistics are notoriously unreliable. You know that as well as I do.
ON2,

I have really appreciated your comments on this board but you asked for facts and you supplied them by ondafarm and then you claim that the facts are incorrect. Is it not you that is falling back on platitudes?

I have not seen as many games as most of the folks on this board but I tend to agree with the numbers I have seen that BA covers more ground than Mack and while there may be some fudging in the numbers it is still the best measure going around.

Range Factor is one of the better defensive measures out there. It is better than the simple fielding percentage. Also there was an article in Baseball Prospectus recently (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060620&content_id=1515202&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws) that undercuts your argument.

Again I have appreciated your comments in the past and I look forward to hearing more on other subjects but in this thread you have not provided a convincing case.

SoxFan64

Ol' No. 2

07-12-2006, 01:12 PM

The so-called "Frater method" to which Ol' No. 2 refers was a satire on the shoota method of calculating statistics that degraded Joe Crede. This tongue-in-cheek proposed "Frater method" would credit Anderson with "hits" when Mackowiak failed to catch a ball that Anderson would have caught. My point was that the Sox ultimately reaped rewards for sticking with Joe Crede because of his superior, Gold Glove-caliber defense, despite his hitting woes (and the weeping and gnashing of teeth by since-banned posters like shoota and WhiteSoxJosh), and that the Sox should be similarly patient with Anderson. This joke (with a point, though) has been retired in favor of the superior stats that Onda has provided. By quantitative analysis, Anderson makes one extra putout per game.

I love debating with you, Ol' No. 2, but face it, you are grasping at straws. When West calls you out on your shoota-esque obsessions, you're liable to earn a new nickname; remember that shoota came to be known as "Glenn Close."
:tongue:Look, let's clear the air, here. Unlike shoota, I like Brian Anderson. He's got a bright future and I hope it's with the White Sox. All these rumors of packaging him and McCarthy to the Giants are laughable. Unless Kenny has started taking stupid pills, it's not going to happen.

HOWEVER, Brian is obviously not where he needs to be, offensively. So the issues are two:

1. How best to get Anderson to where he needs to be, and
2. Whether living with Mackowiak in CF on a temporary basis is the unmitigated disaster that some here have made it out to be.

As to the first, I suggested a month ago that I thought it would be best to send him to AAA to try to get his groove back. That's obviously a matter of opinion - there's no right or wrong answer. They didn't do that, and there's no way of telling how things might have worked out if they had. That ship has sailed and there's no point in debating it any further. At this point, there's no purpose to be served by sending him down now, so they might as well play him, especially since there have been signs of improvement.

However, it's worth noting that I searched every player with post-season AB going all the way back to 1903 and of the non-pitchers there was not a single starter who had a regular season batting average below .170. There were only 11 in all that time with regular season batting averages below .200, and almost all of them were players with limited playing times due to injury (e.g. Jermaine Dye in 2003). Take that fact for what you will.

As to the second issue, this is an interesting debate precisely because it goes beyond Anderson vs. Mackowiak. It's really about how to value offense vs. defense, which is as old as baseball itself. The "Frater method" is not so bad. It's really an adaptation of the old maxim "a run prevented is as good as a run scored", which is used to illustrate the importance of defense. But the converse must also be true: a run scored is as good as a run prevented. This is the basis for that tradeoff, and I see nothing wrong with it. Based on application of this maxim, the extra 100 pts in offense more than makes up for the one or two extra baserunners per week you allow on defense. But even if you consider that some of those extra baserunners will be 2+ bases, at worst it's more or less even. The idea that having Mackowiak in CF on a temporary basis is suicidal is ridiculously overstated.

Lastly, I think this whole RF argument is hilarious, coming, as it does, from the very people who would scoff if RF were used in an argument against them.:wink:

Ol' No. 2

07-12-2006, 01:22 PM

ON2,

I have really appreciated your comments on this board but you asked for facts and you supplied them by ondafarm and then you claim that the facts are incorrect. Is it not you that is falling back on platitudes?

I have not seen as many games as most of the folks on this board but I tend to agree with the numbers I have seen that BA covers more ground than Mack and while there may be some fudging in the numbers it is still the best measure going around.

Range Factor is one of the better defensive measures out there. It is better than the simple fielding percentage. Also there was an article in Baseball Prospectus recently (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060620&content_id=1515202&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws) that undercuts your argument.

Again I have appreciated your comments in the past and I look forward to hearing more on other subjects but in this thread you have not provided a convincing case.

SoxFan64It's real simple. Watch the games. Do you see one play every game that Anderson makes that Mackowiak wouldn't? Or vice versa? I don't. I've been watching for that very thing since this debate started a month and a half ago, and what I've come up with is one or sometimes two each week. That's a far cry from one per game. Engineers have calculated that hummingbirds can't fly, but when the evidence of your eyes contradicts some calculated value, which do you believe?

Also, even if we take those numbers at face value, that doesn't automatically mean that Mackowiak is allowing an extra baserunner each game, since the other OF may be making those extra putouts. It's obvious to even the casual baseball observer that Anderson has more range than Mackowiak. What's less obvious is how much that costs them in extra hits. Assuming the extra hits are equal to the difference in range factors is just plain wrong.

champagne030

07-12-2006, 01:27 PM

The "Frater method" is not so bad. It's really an adaptation of the old maxim "a run prevented is as good as a run scored", which is used to illustrate the importance of defense. But the converse must also be true: a run scored is as good as a run prevented. This is the basis for that tradeoff, and I see nothing wrong with it. Based on application of this maxim, the extra 100 pts in offense more than makes up for the one or two extra baserunners per week you allow on defense. But even if you consider that some of those extra baserunners will be 2+ bases, at worst it's more or less even. The idea that having Mackowiak in CF on a temporary basis is suicidal is ridiculously overstated.

Lastly, I think this whole RF argument is hilarious, coming, as it does, from the very people who would scoff if RF were used in an argument against them.:wink:

You continue to use a figure that is ridiculously low. Try 4-5 balls per week, minimum. Unless there's a high lazy fly within 15 feet of Mack, there's a good chance it's going to be on the ground.

champagne030

07-12-2006, 01:33 PM

It's real simple. Watch the games. Do you see one play every game that Anderson makes that Mackowiak wouldn't? Or vice versa? I don't. I've been watching for that very thing since this debate started a month and a half ago, and what I've come up with is one or sometimes two each week. That's a far cry from one per game. Engineers have calculated that hummingbirds can't fly, but when the evidence of your eyes contradicts some calculated value, which do you believe?

Again, ONCE a week? Put down the bong when watching the Sox and then go get your eyes checked.

Hitmen77

07-12-2006, 01:44 PM

I believe there is only one vote that counts here and I don't think Ozzie has been shy about his opinion. BA is the CF for right now and Mack will get some spot duty there. Everybody gets days off in Ozzie scheme and having a lefty with some power is not a bad sub to have. I think Mack will start to get a few more at-bats subbing in other positions.

The problem is that despite what Ozzie has been saying, he's still been starting Mack in CF every 3rd game. Which has me confused. Barring a sudden regression by BA, I hope we begin to see him out there just about every day.

By the way, you bring up a good point about freeing up Mack to sub at other positions. I wouldn't mind seeing Dye-BA-Mack when Pods needs a rest and likewise Pods-BA-Mack when Dye needs a rest.

Hitmen77

07-12-2006, 01:52 PM

....However, it's worth noting that I searched every player with post-season AB going all the way back to 1903 and of the non-pitchers there was not a single starter who had a regular season batting average below .170. There were only 11 in all that time with regular season batting averages below .200, and almost all of them were players with limited playing times due to injury (e.g. Jermaine Dye in 2003). Take that fact for what you will.

....but I bet that at least some of those guys were hitting below .170 on June 11 and below .200 at the All-Star break.

SoxFan64

07-12-2006, 01:53 PM

It's real simple. Watch the games...Also, even if we take those numbers at face value, that doesn't automatically mean that Mackowiak is allowing an extra baserunner each game, since the other OF may be making those extra putouts.

I thought you wanted facts not platitudes. The basis of your argument is just like the lawyer's argument. 'When you have the facts on your side you argue the facts. When you don't have the facts you argue the issue."

Why don't we just agree to disagree. No one is going to change your opinion on this issue. (Good for you)

But you have not changed a single mind with your facts. So let's end it here and move on to another topic. Ok

Frater Perdurabo

07-12-2006, 02:00 PM

The problem is that despite what Ozzie has been saying, he's still been starting Mack in CF every 3rd game. Which has me confused. Barring a sudden regression by BA, I hope we begin to see him out there just about every day.

This to me is also the real issue.

Really, why is Mack starting every third game or so in CF? I don't mind him getting a start every third game, but more of those starts should come at other positions - third (Crede could use a day off every other week), first (Konerko could use a day off every third or fourth week), left (despite his troubles, Mack is better than Ozuna in left) or even right (Dye deserves a day off every third or fourth week).

Really, Anderson should get no more than one day off per week, and should never, ever be replaced late in a game. If anything, Anderson should come in as a defensive replacement when Mackowiak does get what should be a rare start in center, allowing Mackowiak to move over to left to replace Pods.

Randar68

07-12-2006, 02:24 PM

It's real simple. Watch the games. Do you see one play every game that Anderson makes that Mackowiak wouldn't?

On average, yes... In one game alone I saw 3. He saved a game the other day with one late...

It's a near daily occurrence...

Not only that, but factor in the balls that Mack COULD get to but botches anyways... which is also a semi-regular occurrence...

And what do you get? About 1 out per game difference. Is Mack going to get you a extra hit per game at the plate? Not a chance in hell...

Ol' No. 2

07-12-2006, 02:25 PM

This to me is also the real issue.

Really, why is Mack starting every third game or so in CF? I don't mind him getting a start every third game, but more of those starts should come at other positions - third (Crede could use a day off every other week), first (Konerko could use a day off every third or fourth week), left (despite his troubles, Mack is better than Ozuna in left) or even right (Dye deserves a day off every third or fourth week).

Really, Anderson should get no more than one day off per week, and should never, ever be replaced late in a game. If anything, Anderson should come in as a defensive replacement when Mackowiak does get what should be a rare start in center, allowing Mackowiak to move over to left to replace Pods.As much as we've disagreed over this, I agree with almost everything you said here. As long as they've come this far with him, they might as well keep Anderson in the lineup almost every day. Mackowiak needs to get playing time in like every other bench player, and his bat is red-hot right now, but there are plenty of other places.

Two places I disagree:

Using Mackowiak instead of Ozuna in LF might make sense defensively, but they don't fill the same roles in the lineup. Ozuna can replace Pods at the top of the order, Mackowiak can't.

I also think there are plenty of times late in the game where you might want to PH Mackowiak for Anderson. The fact you can't deny is that Mack has been a much better hitter, and particularly against tough righties, it makes sense to PH Mackowiak late in close games, depending on the particular situation.

ondafarm

07-12-2006, 02:50 PM

Using Mackowiak instead of Ozuna in LF might make sense defensively, but they don't fill the same roles in the lineup. Ozuna can replace Pods at the top of the order, Mackowiak can't.

I also think there are plenty of times late in the game where you might want to PH Mackowiak for Anderson. The fact you can't deny is that Mack has been a much better hitter, and particularly against tough righties, it makes sense to PH Mackowiak late in close games, depending on the particular situation.

I agree with you on these two points.

Mack is a not a lead-off type hitter. I'm not sure Ozuna really is, but he's much closer. Once the line up has turned over a couple of times, I'm not sure how much it matters.

There are times when pinch hitting Mack for Anderson does make sense and Mack isn't a total disaster in the field. But I think we will start to see Anderson more and more in CF.

Frater Perdurabo

07-12-2006, 03:18 PM

Using Mackowiak instead of Ozuna in LF might make sense defensively, but they don't fill the same roles in the lineup. Ozuna can replace Pods at the top of the order, Mackowiak can't.

I also think there are plenty of times late in the game where you might want to PH Mackowiak for Anderson. The fact you can't deny is that Mack has been a much better hitter, and particularly against tough righties, it makes sense to PH Mackowiak late in close games, depending on the particular situation.

Fair enough on the Ozuna point. I'm thinking of situations where Ozzie puts Ozuna in at third and Mackowiak in left.

Yes, Mackowiak has been a better hitter. But Mackowiak should NEVER pinch hit for Anderson when the Sox are leading - the Sox need their best defenders on the field at the end of a game. The only situation where I would pinch hit Mackowiak for Anderson would be if the Sox are trailing in the bottom of the eighth or ninth at home, or maybe in the top of the ninth on the road. Under these circumstances, at worst Mackowiak would only have to play one half-inning in center, ideally with a strikeout pitcher like Jenks or Thornton on the mound.

I fully support KW making a July 31 deal to acquire a fourth outfielder - someone who can play center field at a decent level. This guy could take Gload's spot on the roster since Mackowiak can play first base if necessary. At worst this would only be a one-month situation, since either Gload (if he clears waivers and returns to Charlotte) or Rogowski (if he's not traded and if Gload gets claimed by another team) could come up to the big leagues on Sept. 1 to be the backup first baseman.

Ol' No. 2

07-12-2006, 03:28 PM

Fair enough on the Ozuna point. I'm thinking of situations where Ozzie puts Ozuna in at third and Mackowiak in left.

Yes, Mackowiak has been a better hitter. But Mackowiak should NEVER pinch hit for Anderson when the Sox are leading - the Sox need their best defenders on the field at the end of a game. The only situation where I would pinch hit Mackowiak for Anderson would be if the Sox are trailing in the bottom of the eighth or ninth at home, or maybe in the top of the ninth on the road. Under these circumstances, at worst Mackowiak would only have to play one half-inning in center, ideally with a strikeout pitcher like Jenks or Thornton on the mound.

I fully support KW making a July 31 deal to acquire a fourth outfielder - someone who can play center field at a decent level. This guy could take Gload's spot on the roster since Mackowiak can play first base if necessary. At worst this would only be a one-month situation, since either Gload (if he clears waivers and returns to Charlotte) or Rogowski (if he's not traded and if Gload gets claimed by another team) could come up to the big leagues on Sept. 1 to be the backup first baseman.Using a PH is highly situational. Even if you have a one run lead, if you have ducks on the pond and a chance to make it a three run lead, I think you take it. It all depends on a host of circumstances, and each situation is really unique and has to be decided at the time.

Gload is a guy you'd like to find a space for because he is a pretty decent LH bat, but it's hard to justify a roster spot just for that, and he doesn't play anywhere in the field except backup 1B. He definately seems to be the odd man out if they make a trade.

RockyMtnSoxFan

07-12-2006, 11:37 PM

Just a thought, but who wouldn't like to see Chris Young out there right now? If it was me, I would take that deal back. Vazquez has been pretty mediocre, our bullpen would be better with Vizcaino instead of Politte, and we would at least have another option with Young. And I would very much like to see what McCarthy could do if he were starting every fifth day rather than rotting in the bullpen.

Mr. White Sox

07-12-2006, 11:55 PM

Just a thought, but who wouldn't like to see Chris Young out there right now? If it was me, I would take that deal back. Vazquez has been pretty mediocre, our bullpen would be better with Vizcaino instead of Politte, and we would at least have another option with Young. And I would very much like to see what McCarthy could do if he were starting every fifth day rather than rotting in the bullpen.

Sure, it sounds good, but it's 20/20 hindsight. Not to mention, Young missed a lot of the year with an injury, and I'd highly doubt he'd be up in the majors right now.

KW's good moves have outweighed his "bad" ones (if you could call this trade that), and we'll just wait it out and see what happens with Young's career as well as Vazquez's rest of the season.

oeo

07-13-2006, 12:00 AM

Just a thought, but who wouldn't like to see Chris Young out there right now? If it was me, I would take that deal back. Vazquez has been pretty mediocre, our bullpen would be better with Vizcaino instead of Politte, and we would at least have another option with Young. And I would very much like to see what McCarthy could do if he were starting every fifth day rather than rotting in the bullpen.

I think saying that the Vazquez trade was a bad one is a little premature. It would not surprise me in the least bit, if by the end of the year, he's our best or second best starter. Just because he had a rough first half, does not mean he can't turn it around. I think he's going to be great in the second half.

grinderrule#1

07-13-2006, 12:09 AM

i know its kinda off topic but remember BA's first AB of the season? even though it seems like all of his homers come in 15-5 games hes a good player and we dont really have any other true CF on the roster or in the minors (jerry owens but is he ready) we have to stick with him.

Ol' No. 2

07-13-2006, 09:17 AM

Just a thought, but who wouldn't like to see Chris Young out there right now? If it was me, I would take that deal back. Vazquez has been pretty mediocre, our bullpen would be better with Vizcaino instead of Politte, and we would at least have another option with Young. And I would very much like to see what McCarthy could do if he were starting every fifth day rather than rotting in the bullpen.Replace Vazquez with Contreras and Anderson/Young with Rowand/Reed and it's 2005 all over again.

Thome25

07-13-2006, 09:27 AM

I think saying that the Vazquez trade was a bad one is a little premature. It would not surprise me in the least bit, if by the end of the year, he's our best or second best starter. Just because he had a rough first half, does not mean he can't turn it around. I think he's going to be great in the second half.

I agree with you on this. Let Vazquez finish an entire season then pass judgement on the trade. I keep saying this but, Contreras had a mediocre first half in 2005 and everyone was saying he was terrible and we had to get rid of him.

KW was even exploring a trade last year with us possibly sending Contreras to the Marlins for AJ Burnett. Thank God KW didn't jump the gun on that trade because we all know Contreras has been on fire ever since.

Give Vasquez a chance. He just might pull a Contreras from last year.

fquaye149

07-13-2006, 09:56 AM

Replace Vazquez with Contreras and Anderson/Young with Rowand/Reed and it's 2005 all over again.

I thnk you meant to say Garcia instead of Contreras and 2004 instead of 2005...

Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying, since no one wanted to replace Rowand after the second half of 2004 when he tore it up.....

Ol' No. 2

07-13-2006, 10:01 AM

I thnk you meant to say Garcia instead of Contreras and 2004 instead of 2005...

Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying, since no one wanted to replace Rowand after the second half of 2004 when he tore it up.....There were still an awful lot of FOJR last year who were not too enamored with Aaron Rowand, especially after he got off to a slow start.

voodoochile

07-13-2006, 10:13 AM

There were still an awful lot of FOJR last year who were not too enamored with Aaron Rowand, especially after he got off to a slow start.

I'm still not that enamored with him. 2004 was a fluke.

Ol' No. 2

07-13-2006, 10:41 AM

I'm still not that enamored with him. 2004 was a fluke.There's a big difference between hitting a the top of the order with good hitters behind you and hitting 7th. I think that was a big part of his extraordinary 2004 numbers, but no doubt, he had an above-average year on top of it. I'd expect he's going to bounce around in the .280 range over his career, some years higher, some lower. I wouldn't trade Anderson for him, but a team could do a lot worse, too.

ondafarm

07-13-2006, 10:50 AM

Rowand did something a lot of guys don't do: when he was sent down he re-focused on his position and learned better how to play it. He evidently spent a lot of time in the weight room and worked real hard to get back to the majors.

That being said, Rowand was never intuitive in center, his crashing into walls was a bad thing and his hitting what good but not great.

I don't miss him at all.

Frater Perdurabo

07-13-2006, 10:55 AM

That being said, Rowand was never intuitive in center, his crashing into walls was a bad thing and his hitting what good but not great.

I don't miss him at all.

I agree that Rowand was not intuitive in center, but in a perfect, deeppink world, it would be nice to have Rowand back on the team as the fourth outfielder. I think we can all agree that he would be better in CF than Mackowiak when Anderson isn't starting.

Ol' No. 2

07-13-2006, 10:57 AM

Rowand did something a lot of guys don't do: when he was sent down he re-focused on his position and learned better how to play it. He evidently spent a lot of time in the weight room and worked real hard to get back to the majors.

That being said, Rowand was never intuitive in center, his crashing into walls was a bad thing and his hitting what good but not great.

I don't miss him at all.The year he got sent down (2003?) was the year he got hurt in the off-season. I think his time in AAA was as much because he wasn't 100% and didn't get an effective spring training. He came back up in June and hit very well from then on.

hi im skot

07-13-2006, 11:21 AM

:tomatoaward
Something tells me we're gonna see a lot of these...

ondafarm

07-13-2006, 11:26 AM

The year he got sent down (2003?) was the year he got hurt in the off-season. I think his time in AAA was as much because he wasn't 100% and didn't get an effective spring training. He came back up in June and hit very well from then on.

I saw him in Durham playing the Bulls (he nearly hit the bull, did hit the grass, so he won a free salad.) And actually got to talk to him afterwards. I'd been asked to scout Aaron Miles for my old Japanese org and try to approach him. When Miles came to the bar I was at, Rowand came with him.

Rowand was pretty much mad at the world and wouldn't shake my hand. When a guy buys you a drink, I think you should at least shake his hand and say thanks. Miles did. Rowand asked if the Dragons would be interested in him and even though I deftly said, "I've only been asked to scout Miles." He pushed me on the issue. I told him, they'd be after your fundamentals, how well you play defense, how well you sacrifice, if you can bunt, if you can steal. He didn't seem very impressed. I was talking about bunting for a hit but he assumed I meant sacrifice bunting, something I think he still can't do.

But he did say all he wanted was to get back with the Sox and he was working hard to get there, something Miles confirmed to me.

Iguana775

07-13-2006, 11:37 AM

Since June 11 (his average bottomed out on June 10 at .152), Anderson is 16 for 57 for a .281 AVG. He also has six doubles and five walks and a homer in that time. (Remember that he missed five games due to the suspension and Ozzie inexplicably chose not to give him any ABs in five other games - including three games in July.)

Isn't a .281 average just about everything that anyone could have expected Anderson to achieve (if not more)? Don't hold the first 10 weeks of the season against him, in which he had the difficult task of replacing a fan favorite (and apparently a good friend) on the defending World Champs, and still played (and continues to play) Gold Glove-caliber defense.

With the way Anderson has been producing of late, there's no reason to replace him and there's no reason whatsoever for Rob Mackowiak to start in center field.

ANYTHING, and I mean ANYTHING, that keeps Mackowiak out of CF is fine by me.

Sxy Mofo

07-13-2006, 11:49 AM

As with most other situations in my life, I can relate this to snowboarding, follow me...

BA has been riding the greens and blues. He was doing well. This year, he got sent to the fire and is riding blacks for the first time. He fell, a lot. He's starting to get the hang of it, so sending him back to the blues and greens (unless he's totally forgotten how to ride altogether) is pointless. He needs to keep learning on the blacks, keep falling down and getting up... and right now, it appears he's learning, so we've got to stick with him.

If he wasn't making any progress, we've got to send him down... but he is making progress.

hi im skot

07-13-2006, 11:51 AM

As with most other situations in my life, I can relate this to snowboarding, follow me...

BA has been riding the greens and blues. He was doing well. This year, he got sent to the fire and is riding blacks for the first time. He fell, a lot. He's starting to get the hang of it, so sending him back to the blues and greens (unless he's totally forgotten how to ride altogether) is pointless. He needs to keep learning on the blacks, keep falling down and getting up... and right now, it appears he's learning, so we've got to stick with him.

If he wasn't making any progress, we've got to send him down... but he is making progress.

uhh...

well put?

Ol' No. 2

07-13-2006, 12:05 PM

I saw him in Durham playing the Bulls (he nearly hit the bull, did hit the grass, so he won a free salad.) And actually got to talk to him afterwards. I'd been asked to scout Aaron Miles for my old Japanese org and try to approach him. When Miles came to the bar I was at, Rowand came with him.

Rowand was pretty much mad at the world and wouldn't shake my hand. When a guy buys you a drink, I think you should at least shake his hand and say thanks. Miles did. Rowand asked if the Dragons would be interested in him and even though I deftly said, "I've only been asked to scout Miles." He pushed me on the issue. I told him, they'd be after your fundamentals, how well you play defense, how well you sacrifice, if you can bunt, if you can steal. He didn't seem very impressed. I was talking about bunting for a hit but he assumed I meant sacrifice bunting, something I think he still can't do.

But he did say all he wanted was to get back with the Sox and he was working hard to get there, something Miles confirmed to me.I suspect by that time he was pretty frustrated with the Sox organization and his prospects within it. If you'll recall, in 2002 it looked like he was going to get his chance, only to have the Sox sign Kenny Lofton in January, sending Rowand back to the bench. When Lofton got traded, Rowand really blossomed, hitting something above .350 for the last half of the year. Then in 2003 it looked like he was going to get his chance, only to hurt his shoulder dirt biking. I can certainly understand how he'd be unsure if he was in the Sox' long-term plans.

voodoochile

07-13-2006, 12:29 PM

There's a big difference between hitting a the top of the order with good hitters behind you and hitting 7th. I think that was a big part of his extraordinary 2004 numbers, but no doubt, he had an above-average year on top of it. I'd expect he's going to bounce around in the .280 range over his career, some years higher, some lower. I wouldn't trade Anderson for him, but a team could do a lot worse, too.

Sure, he's a solid defensive CF and an average bat. That makes him a plus player because CF are traditionally below average bats. I'm still happier with BA and his potential.

maurice

07-13-2006, 03:44 PM

Putting the extremely one-sided defense debate aside for a moment, I still maintain that Anderson is likely to outperform Mackowiak at the plate from here on out (even though Anderson has to face the imposing likes of Santana, Liriano, Sabathia, etc. and often gets benched when the Sox are taking BP against a RHP having a bad day).

Mackowiak is a .262 AVE / .747 OPS player over his career. His current stats are padded by his .336 v. RHP this season. That won't hold up. His career AVE v. RHP is only .266. Meanwhile, Anderson's AVE and OPS have gone up each month . . . exactly what you'd expect from a talented but inexperienced player (unless you're frustrated that your predictions of catastrophe are looking very silly at the moment).

BTW, in terms of run production, Anderson already has outperformed Mackowiak. Despite only 20 more ABs, Anderson has 7 more runs scored and 6 more RBI. This season, the Sox have scored 32 more runs than anybody else in MLB, so lack of offensive production from CF obviously isn't an issue.

Unless Anderson completely falls apart at the plate, this "argument" is ridiculous.

ondafarm

07-13-2006, 08:07 PM

Putting the extremely one-sided defense debate aside for a moment, I still maintain that Anderson is likely to outperform Mackowiak at the plate from here on out (even though Anderson has to face the imposing likes of Santana, Liriano, Sabathia, etc. and often gets benched when the Sox are taking BP against a RHP having a bad day).

Mackowiak is a .262 AVE / .747 OPS player over his career. His current stats are padded by his .336 v. RHP this season. That won't hold up. His career AVE v. RHP is only .266. Meanwhile, Anderson's AVE and OPS have gone up each month . . . exactly what you'd expect from a talented but inexperienced player (unless you're frustrated that your predictions of catastrophe are looking very silly at the moment).

BTW, in terms of run production, Anderson already has outperformed Mackowiak. Despite only 20 more ABs, Anderson has 7 more runs scored and 6 more RBI. This season, the Sox have scored 32 more runs than anybody else in MLB, so lack of offensive production from CF obviously isn't an issue.

Unless Anderson completely falls apart at the plate, this "argument" is ridiculous.

Well said.

One point. I think that Ozzie has been utilizing Mack actually really well, spotting him in situations he can and does succeed. As Anderson gains more experience and confidence, Ozzie seems to be spotting him better as well. While I don't dispute your stats on Mack, I think Ozzie is able to get good results from him and keep his season numbers above his career numbers.

Sxy Mofo

07-14-2006, 10:46 AM

uhh...

well put?

You flatlanders...

JorgeFabregas

07-15-2006, 01:58 PM

Is that a 5-game hitting streak? One bright spot, at least.

Chips

07-15-2006, 02:03 PM

Is that a 5-game hitting streak? One bright spot, at least.

6 games. Hell yeah.

BainesHOF

07-15-2006, 03:32 PM

Anderson followed his failure to back up Ozuna Friday with another poor performance Saturday - misplaying a catchable ball and then not moving a runner over. I've seen enough for this season. It's time to find a major leaguer to play center for us. Anderson can try again in 2007.

MrRoboto83

07-15-2006, 03:37 PM

Anderson followed his failure to back up Ozuna Friday with another poor performance Saturday - misplaying a catchable ball and then not moving a runner over. I've seen enough for this season. It's time to find a major leaguer to play center for us. Anderson can try again in 2007.

Oh come on, Brian is starting to swing his bat now, he misplays one ball in Center and you want him gone?

MrX

07-15-2006, 03:37 PM

Anderson followed his failure to back up Ozuna Friday with another poor performance Saturday - misplaying a catchable ball and then not moving a runner over. I've seen enough for this season. It's time to find a major leaguer to play center for us. Anderson can try again in 2007.
AJ let two balls get past him that both led to runs and popped out with 2 on and 1 out. Let's get rid of him too.

The double Anderson hit that led to him scoring the first run was really awful.

sachin

07-15-2006, 03:56 PM

I do not think that Brian Andersen plays baseball very well. Too many mistakes that either cost White Sox the game or do nothing to help White Sox. When Brian Andersen performs something it is when the game does not matter anymore. Last night my brother and me and friend watched the White Sox game against New York Yankees, and our friend said Brian Andersen plays only like Ron Say of Chicago Cubs, where he performs very well when the game does not mean something to anyone.

kobo

07-15-2006, 04:00 PM

Anderson followed his failure to back up Ozuna Friday with another poor performance Saturday - misplaying a catchable ball and then not moving a runner over. I've seen enough for this season. It's time to find a major leaguer to play center for us. Anderson can try again in 2007.
You expected Anderson to back up a ball that Ozuna had to run to his right to try and catch? One that Ozuna did not hustle after when he hit the ground? And sorry, but there is nothing Anderson could have done today to have helped the Sox win the game.

JorgeFabregas

07-15-2006, 05:17 PM

The double Anderson hit that led to him scoring the first run was really awful.

It also sucked when he got a double and scored to bring the team within a run in the last game they won.

He only does well when it doesn't matter? *****

southsideirish71

07-15-2006, 06:04 PM

Anderson followed his failure to back up Ozuna Friday with another poor performance Saturday - misplaying a catchable ball and then not moving a runner over. I've seen enough for this season. It's time to find a major leaguer to play center for us. Anderson can try again in 2007.

Well based on that analysis, youve seen enough of Cintron because he dropped a ball, Gooch I guess is bad in your book because he didnt cover first. Knocking this kids defense is almost a joke. I am sure you loved Rowand with all of your heart, but he is gone. Forever. Let it go.

Anderson has great defense. Some days he wont play great. Even Torii Hunter messes up from time to time. The kid has been hitting for the last month. He got a hit off of Randy Johnson when others on the team were struggling to get hits. Today he gets a double off of a tough Mike Mussina. This teams problem is not Brian Anderson.

If you want to see the problem, look exactly 60'6" from home plate. That is the main place we have struggled this year. If we get that in check we will be fine.

ondafarm

07-15-2006, 10:31 PM

I do not think that Brian Andersen plays baseball very well. Too many mistakes that either cost White Sox the game or do nothing to help White Sox. When Brian Andersen performs something it is when the game does not matter anymore. Last night my brother and me and friend watched the White Sox game against New York Yankees, and our friend said Brian Andersen plays only like Ron Say of Chicago Cubs, where he performs very well when the game does not mean something to anyone.

I see that you are new so I won't correct your bad grammar.

I will say that any professional player would be definately insulted by your post.

Meninho

07-16-2006, 12:40 AM

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's more pertinent here:

I really think BrAndo needs to go. Anderson ranks 2nd in the AL for defensive win shares for OF with 2.7, a pretty accurate SABRmetric stat for defense. The problem is, you don't need defensive win shares from an outfielder, they just don't see the ball that often to prevent runs. Beltran leads all OF with 4.7, and I-Rod leads all players with 6.6. Compare that to 16.2 offensively for El Caballo or 20.9 for Pujols , and then I see that BrAndo is only contributing 2.3 WS overall, (seeing as how he has -.4 WS with the bat), ranking out of the top ONE HUNDRED overall among all Major League outfielders, behind such luminaries as Emil Brown and Steve Finley. His -.4 ranks 177th (***?!) in offensive WS for OF. That's just pure garbage! Mackowiak has FIVE and he's not even an everday player. This might be too stathead for some, but i think that WS are accurate and comprehenisve way of determining a player's value, and BrAndo has almost none. Send him back, give him some confidence, and pick up some shlub off the waiver wire at least. His hair is resplendent, but resplendent locks does not an AL Central win.

MrX

07-16-2006, 12:56 AM

The problem is, you don't need defensive win shares from an outfielder, they just don't see the ball that often to prevent runs.
The way the Sox are pitching right now they need all the defensive help they can get. They can't afford Mackowiak's two or three guaranteed misreads a game when they have a rotation that seemingly meltdowns after every mistake.

And who are you going to get off the waiver wire that isn't garbage?

DeadMoney

07-16-2006, 01:31 AM

No opinion, just stats.

Anderson has a 5 game hit streak and is hitting .281 in his last 19 games with 11 runs, 8 RBI's, and only 7 K's in 64 at-bats.

oeo

07-16-2006, 02:05 AM

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's more pertinent here:

I really think BrAndo needs to go. Anderson ranks 2nd in the AL for defensive win shares for OF with 2.7, a pretty accurate SABRmetric stat for defense. The problem is, you don't need defensive win shares from an outfielder, they just don't see the ball that often to prevent runs. Beltran leads all OF with 4.7, and I-Rod leads all players with 6.6. Compare that to 16.2 offensively for El Caballo or 20.9 for Pujols , and then I see that BrAndo is only contributing 2.3 WS overall, (seeing as how he has -.4 WS with the bat), ranking out of the top ONE HUNDRED overall among all Major League outfielders, behind such luminaries as Emil Brown and Steve Finley. His -.4 ranks 177th (***?!) in offensive WS for OF. That's just pure garbage! Mackowiak has FIVE and he's not even an everday player. This might be too stathead for some, but i think that WS are accurate and comprehenisve way of determining a player's value, and BrAndo has almost none. Send him back, give him some confidence, and pick up some shlub off the waiver wire at least. His hair is resplendent, but resplendent locks does not an AL Central win.
So you make a great nickname for the guy, and then you want him to go?

You'd rather pick someone up off waivers than give Brian a chance? Excuse me while I :puking:

voodoochile

07-16-2006, 02:19 AM

So you make a great nickname for the guy, and then you want him to go?

You'd rather pick someone up off waivers than give Brian a chance? Excuse me while I :puking:

talking about win shares contributed by a rookie is simply ridiculous. Not every rookie is a Frank Thomas. If we talked about Crede's win shares a few years ago, would he still be on the team? Would Buehrle? Would Garland? Heck, the reason the Sox go Uribe is because his win shares were pathetic in Colorado.

Another great day for propeller heads everywhere...

How many guys are sitting out there waiting to be picked up with more win shares than BA? What if he manages to continue to hit like he has the past month?

OHMIGAWD! The rookie CF with the second best glove in the majors for outfielders hasn't performed at the plate! CUT HIS ASS!!!:rolleyes:

CLR01

07-16-2006, 02:30 AM

Send him back, give him some confidence, and pick up some shlub off the waiver wire at least. His hair is resplendent, but resplendent locks does not an AL Central win.

You want to replace Anderson with some shlub off the waiver wire????

Lay off the booze.

Meninho

07-16-2006, 02:34 AM

You'd rather pick someone up off waivers than give Brian a chance? Excuse me while I :puking:

187 AB is a chance. If he can stay above .240 or so from here on out, I guess he's worth it. In a tight penant race, I'd want at least 10 WS a year per starter. He's on pace for 4 win shares (maybe 8 assuming he'll level off to the .240 range). 8 would put him down around #90 for OF's. Still not acceptable on a playoff team. Hell, Jeremy Reed had 10 last year. A waiver player--and I'm saying a waiver guy at the very least (Luis Matos?)--would cost nothing in terms of prospects and produce.

CLR01

07-16-2006, 02:44 AM

(Luis Matos?)--would cost nothing in terms of prospects and produce.

He signed with the Nationals on Friday. Time to update that BP subscription.

The Sox WS hopes are over now that the great Luis Matos has signed elsewhere. :whiner::whiner::whiner::angry:

Meninho

07-16-2006, 02:47 AM

OHMIGAWD! The rookie CF with the second best glove in the majors for outfielders hasn't performed at the plate! CUT HIS ASS!!!:rolleyes:

A rookie is a player. He plays on the team, he comes to the plate, his outs count just as much as anyone else. Rookie Brad Hawpe had 8 WS for bottom-dwelling Colorado last year with at .754 OPS. What will .605 Anderson produce, while on a contending team? Why should the White Sox tolerate that when they're not rebuilding? A rookie CF with a #2 glove IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT if he has -.4 WS. #2 CF glove translates to 2.7. Who gives a crap about 2.7? Maybe that equals 6 for a year. So what? Defense means the least in the outfield than at any other position except P. Maybe CF means slightly more, but not much. Send him back to the minors and get a half-season replacement, don't cut him.

The Sox WS hopes are over now that the great Luis Matos has signed elsewhere. :whiner::whiner::whiner::angry:

Luis Matos isn't great. He was a free acquisition a would produce more wins for the team.

CLR01

07-16-2006, 02:56 AM

Why should the White Sox tolerate that when they're not rebuilding? A rookie CF with a #2 glove IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT if he has -.4 WS. #2 CF glove translates to 2.7. Who gives a crap about 2.7?

Who gives a crap about a win shares? Thank god KW and Ozzie could give a rats ass about that garbage. Study up though it seems to suit you just fine.

Luis Matos isn't great. He was a free acquisition a would produce more wins for the team.

Luis Matos sucks. That's why he got released by the O's and signed with the Nationals.

Meninho

07-16-2006, 03:01 AM

Who gives a crap about a win shares? Thank god KW and Ozzie could give a rats ass about that garbage. Study up though it seems to suit you just fine.

Luis Matos sucks. That's why he got released by the O's and signed with the Nationals.

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.

Timmy D's

07-16-2006, 03:02 AM

I do not think that Brian Andersen plays baseball very well. Too many mistakes that either cost White Sox the game or do nothing to help White Sox. When Brian Andersen performs something it is when the game does not matter anymore. Last night my brother and me and friend watched the White Sox game against New York Yankees, and our friend said Brian Andersen plays only like Ron Say of Chicago Cubs, where he performs very well when the game does not mean something to anyone.

Glad ya got to watch the game, and it was Ron "Cey" you are referring to. Anyways, as A guy who played a little CF here and there, I only wish I had some of the reads BA has on the ball. His defense is great!! I dont know how anyone could even question that?? He gets as good of a 1st step as anyone I've seen in some time, and if he mis-reads it, he has enough make-up speed to counter it. The reason Ozzie has stuck w/ BA is his defense, and his bat is finally coming around. Brian will be a premier CFer, just give him 1-2 more years to figure out the bat. As to your post, I just dont understand what you mean?? I've seen Brian make an occasional bad throw DESCISION where he blew off the cut-off to try and gun a guy down at home, that came up for not, and the batter was able to advance to 2nd on the throw to home, BUT, HEY, that's tryin to make a play, and ya cant fault a guy too much for that, as he saw something and took a chance, if it turned up 21 he was a hero, as it was he allowed a batter to get in scoring position. Oh well. I n ref to someone elses comment about not backing up, or dogging it, where he doesnt back up, I have never seen him do that either, so dont understand that comment. I dont know?? I commend Ozzie for sticking w/ him, as I think he has things worked out, and his confidence at the plate. His defense has been worth the sacrifice at the plate thus far IMHO, and Pods,Gooch,Jim, Paulie, Dye, Crede,AJ have picked him up w/ their bats. Heres to BA startin off the 2nd half of the season, I believe now w/ a 7 game hittin streak!!! I personally like the guy!!!:gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

Chips

07-16-2006, 03:52 AM

Win shares? Are you ****ing kidding me? What the ****?

Anderson is ****ing awesome in the field and he has been hitting much better lately.

Epark84

07-16-2006, 03:54 AM

Call me crazy but id like a real major league CF, who can occassionally get a bunt down or move a runner over...BA is a AAAer

Chips

07-16-2006, 04:00 AM

Call me crazy but id like a real major league CF, who can occassionally get a bunt down or move a runner over...BA is a AAAer

You could not be more wrong.

IlliniSox4Life

07-16-2006, 04:38 AM

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.

Well, if the numbers never lie, then we should definately keep Anderson. A Baseball Prospectus article not too long ago said he was on pace to have the best defensive centerfielder season in over 100 years, and they are all about the numbers. Plus, he's batting .283 over the last month, and .333 in July, NO BRAINER!

FarWestChicago

07-16-2006, 08:40 AM

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.:fobbgod:

Spread the word, my son. And gaze upon the World Series trophies on my mantle.

Daver

07-16-2006, 08:53 AM

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.

Numbers lie all the time.

By the numbers, Royce Clayton was a terrific defensive SS, watch the game he plays, and it is apparent he is not.

Please continue to fool yourself though, the rest of us find it amusing.

voodoochile

07-16-2006, 09:12 AM

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.

Bull...

****...

Oh good, the next jeremyb has arrived...

We don't need to actually watch games. We don't need to actually evaluate a player based on his performance, we can pick up a newspaper or subscribe to some baseball forum that will make up a bunch of meaningless stats and sell them to us and then we can run a baseball team.

win shares...:rolleyes:

I repeat...

BULL...

****...

The Wall

07-16-2006, 09:19 AM

Bull...

****...

Oh good, the next jeremyb has arrived...

We don't need to actually watch games. We don't need to actually evaluate a player based on his performance, we can pick up a newspaper or subscribe to some baseball forum that will make up a bunch of meaningless stats and sell them to us and then we can run a baseball team.

win shares...:rolleyes:

I repeat...

BULL...

****...

Atleast he didnt make up a chart like HomeFish :rolleyes:

FarWestChicago

07-16-2006, 09:20 AM

Atleast he didnt make up a chart like HomeFish :rolleyes:That was such a classic. :D:

MrRoboto83

07-16-2006, 09:23 AM

Bull...

****...

Oh good, the next jeremyb has arrived...

We don't need to actually watch games. We don't need to actually evaluate a player based on his performance, we can pick up a newspaper or subscribe to some baseball forum that will make up a bunch of meaningless stats and sell them to us and then we can run a baseball team.

win shares...:rolleyes:

I repeat...

BULL...

****...

True fact! If Kenny Williams was going on the numbers when he put together the 2005 team he would of been putting together a 3rd place team at best in 2005.

voodoochile

07-16-2006, 09:39 AM

True fact! If Kenny Williams was going on the numbers when he put together the 2005 team he would of been putting together a 3rd place team at best in 2005.
This is a great point and I am going to ask menniho to do the analysis and figure out how many games the Sox should have won last year and if they even stood a chance of winning the WS based on the numbers they produced. Then he/she can send me all his WS stuff and I'll wear it in good health...:rolleyes:

ondafarm

07-16-2006, 09:59 AM

This is a great point and I am going to ask menniho to do the analysis and figure out how many games the Sox should have won last year and if they even stood a chance of winning the WS based on the numbers they produced. Then he/she can send me all his WS stuff and I'll wear it in good health...:rolleyes:

Most analyses I have seen have the 2005 White Sox as a roughly .500 team by the numbers.

BA's win shares have been very low, but I think it's more a flaw in the system than bad play. He wasn't hitting much at the start of the season, but he is hitting now, and if the number nine hitter starts carrying a hitting streak and producing, then this team should be even better.

kobo

07-16-2006, 10:19 AM

What the **** is a win share and what kind of meaningless statistic is it?

The win shares typically come out pretty good. The fielding ones are highest to SS, CF, 2B, C and 3B, the defensive positions.

MrX

07-16-2006, 01:14 PM

Mackowiak's defense leads to another run

Good thing CF defense doesn't matter

CLR01

07-16-2006, 01:38 PM

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.

Any set of numbers that tell you some free agent scrub is better than Anderson is lying to you. Then again maybe it's the formulas and not the numbers that are full of ****.

CLR01

07-16-2006, 01:40 PM

Mackowiak's defense leads to another run

Good thing CF defense doesn't matter

But his win share rating is 5.

maurice

07-16-2006, 02:19 PM

talking about win shares contributed by a rookie is simply ridiculous.

Especially when (1) he doesn't get to play every day, and (2) the more relevant rate stats show that he's great defensively and continuouly improving at the plate. This is dumb, even for a stat head.
:rolleyes:

This series illustrates something discussed earlier. Anderson starts against Randy Johnson and Mike Mussina, while Mackowiak starts against Jaret Wright. When we play the Twins, Anderson will draw Santana and Liriano, while Mack probably will get to face their relatively craptacular righties.

Droso5

07-16-2006, 03:17 PM

Big Brian Anderson had a sac fly and a single as well today against the Yankess, and he did it cold coming off the bench. He continues to improve, much to the dismay of some on this board. I think sometimes that BA could hit .300 the rest of the season and people would still say we need a "major league" center-fielder because they refuse to either let Aaron Rowand go or they cant put anything in the proper perspective. GO BA.

Frater Perdurabo

07-16-2006, 03:23 PM

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.
Are you sure you didn't mean to register under the username "jeremyb2?"

:whoflungpoo

Hitmen77

07-16-2006, 03:29 PM

Big Brian Anderson had a sac fly and a single as well today against the Yankess, and he did it cold coming off the bench. He continues to improve, much to the dismay of some on this board. I think sometimes that BA could hit .300 the rest of the season and people would still say we need a "major league" center-fielder because they refuse to either let Aaron Rowand go or they cant put anything in the proper perspective. GO BA.

His average for the season is now at .200. The way he's been playing over the last month, I think he'll quickly leave the Mendoza line behind him.

ondafarm

07-16-2006, 03:47 PM

. . . much to the dismay of some on this board. I think sometimes that BA could hit .300 the rest of the season and people would still say we need a "major league" center-fielder because they refuse to either let Aaron Rowand go or they cant put anything in the proper perspective. GO BA.

At least one good thing has come from this discussion, a brand new hip (IMHO) nickname.

Go BrAndo!!!

TornLabrum

07-16-2006, 03:56 PM

At least one good thing has come from this discussion, a brand new hip (IMHO) nickname.

Go BrAndo!!!

Now we'll have to trade him to Florida so he can be the Marlins' BrAndo. :puking:

CLR01

07-16-2006, 04:15 PM

Now we'll have to trade him to Florida so he can be the Marlins' BrAndo. :puking:

BrAndo for Willis and Cabrera then trade Vazquez and Uribe for Crawford and Kazmir. I like. :thumbsup:

TornLabrum

07-16-2006, 04:24 PM

BrAndo for Willis and Cabrera then trade Vazquez and Uribe for Crawford and Kazmir. I like. :thumbsup:

I fully expect to see this on the rumor boards and eventually hear it on sportsblab radio in the next 24 hours.

SABRSox

07-16-2006, 04:36 PM

Talk about guts and heart and all that makes great copy but it's a load of crap and so is your endearing blue collar flippancy. It's a game of numbers, chief, and they never lie.

Win shares are horribly flawed.

And thanks for coming here and giving the rest of us SABR people a bad name. We really appreciate it.

TornLabrum

07-16-2006, 04:48 PM

Win shares are horribly flawed.

And thanks for coming here and giving the rest of us SABR people a bad name. We really appreciate it.

He's getting good competition from Stathead21.

The Wimperoo

07-16-2006, 04:57 PM

Win shares are horribly flawed.

And thanks for coming here and giving the rest of us SABR people a bad name. We really appreciate it.

Seriously, defensive win shares are garbage. There are plenty of other defensive metrics that work much better. Range factor, zone rating, FRAA, Rate are a lot more accurate as well as using your eyes.